60th minute obvious handling foul by Attakora of Toronto. Jair Maruffo gives the penalty and then gives Attakora a straight red card. This is a cross mind you the ball is in the air towards a wide open Henry. However it is not according to the USSF an Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity. This shouldn't have been a red card at all. Am I missing something?
http://www.mlssoccer.com/videos?id=7989 3:50 of this video. I have no problem with it, no matter what ATR says. Open header from 6 yards for a professional footballer seems like an obvious goal scoring opportunity to me. The 4D's (I know usually respond with DGF, not DGH) can't cover every scenario. This is probably one of them. <Que PVancouver>
I disagree there is no precedent in Law or interpretation I can find to justify this call. Henry hasn't even scored in the MLS yet, so the goalscoring opportunity isn't obvious. Goalkeeper is still there, the ball is not on it's way to go. I can understand if it's a foul on a cross...but not a Handling foul. Handling foul really has to block a shot going towards the goal in order to be a red card.
Disagree denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)
To me if it doesn't rise to the certainty of physics that he's going to score than it's not obvious. The reason for the word "obvious" is so no one will give red cards for stuff like this. I'm starting to really hope now that FIFA will change the law to if you DOGSO in the box it's a yellow card. Because a red card for that and a penalty kick...that's just wrong.
The Law says that it is a sending off offense to deny a goal or goal scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area). That looked like an obvious goal scoring opportunity to me. You have to remember, an obvious goal scoring opportunity is exactly what it says on the tin, an opportunity. There is no guarantee a goal would have been scored, simply that there was, without a doubt, an opportunity for one to be scored. The four D's do not apply to "denying an goal by deliberately handling the ball" because it is a black and white situation. There was either going to be a goal or not. If you remove the deliberate handling, does the ball enter the goal? If yes, it's a red card. If no, it's not. The four D's are still excellent criteria for a referee to consider, however, when determining an obvious goal scoring opportunity, even when a deliberate handling offense is involved. In this case, Henry was moving towards the goal, had only the goalkeeper between himself and the goal, and was no more than 6 yards from the goal line. The only criterion that is questionable is his distance to the ball. Without checking the replay again, I think he was somewhere less than 10 yards from where the ball was handled by Attakora so he did not have the ball at his feet. However, the referee correctly determined that had Attakora not deliberately handled the ball, the ball was going to be received by Henry, who was close enough that no one would be able to beat him to it. That, in my opinion, satisfies the distance to the ball criterion and therefore demonstrates that this was an obvious goal scoring opportunity.
If you decide to play volleyball in the penalty area and your not wearing hamburger helper gloves, you can't complain if you get sent off, IMO.
If the penalty was only a yellow card on a play like this, you would have defenders purposely swiping at the ball more often. Henry is rushing in for a header and Attakora apparently does not believe his keeper will get it so he purposely sticks his arm out. It was definitely denying a goal-scoring opportunity.
Ok I understand the arguments. I'm not going to hand out a red card for this until the USSF says explicitly that this is a red card. Cause there is absolutely no guarantee that Henry will control the ball and put it in. There's way too much grey area here to essentially decide the game. I'm all for a referee making major decisions, it's their job. Not when it's not supported directly by the law.
This probably is going to ruffle feathers in the referee forums, but here goes. When I'm calling a match, I don't give two flying s**ts about the 4 D's. The 4 D's are not in the Laws. The Law just says that a it's a red card if, ITOOTR, the player commits a foul and DOGSO. If you look at the 4 D's here, I think two of them go AGAINST the red card. Distance to goal? OK. Distance to ball? The ball was on the other side of the penalty area, so no. Direction? Henry was moving towards goal, so yes. Defenders? If the defender who committed the handball vanished from the face of the earth, the goalkeeper probably punches it away easily, so no. And truth be told, given the fact that the goalkeeper probably handles that, I would have elected for yellow in this case. But if the referee on the field feels that a scoring opportunity was about to happen, I have ZERO problem with red in this case. Clearly, the defender must have felt a sense of urgency (even if he was mistaken) to commit that action. Hard for me to think the referee's out of his mind when a dangerous cross is being whipped into the penalty area, a defender and a goalkeeper are scrambling to cover it (remember, there was already one own goal in that match, so we all know what can happen in a situation like that), and an outfield player makes a decision to reach up and slap it away with his hand. This may not technically be a situation where USSF thinks it's a red card, but I have no problem with the decision to call it one. Besides -- screw USSF. This was in Toronto.
If I'm a defender and the ball is being crossed to someone who is unmarked and had a chance to head the ball on goal into an empty net, I'll gladly stick my arm out and give up a PK (under your reasoning) if I think it's only a yellow card. Otherwise, defenders would be doing this more often.
Well I gotta say I don't trust Jair Maruffo's judgement at all. I get that we should let the referee on the field make that distinction. It's making me nervous as far consistency goes though, I think FIFA should take a look at that DOGSO Red Card thing more quickly.
Then they should've been doing it all the time because I've only ever seen Yellow Cards for this situation. Never seen a red card for a cross ever in my life.
That's a YOU problem. I don't. FIFA's opinion is pretty clear. If it's a scoring opportunity, it's red. USSF seem to be the one's who are making it complicated by issuing a whole bunch of criteria that have to be met. True, anytime it's left up to the opinion of the referee, there's going to be some subjectivity, and thus, some inconsistancy. That's not a reason, though. Tell me one aspect of refereeing that doesn't have some inconsistancy from one referee to another, one match to another, or one league to another.
So I take it you've seen many examples of a cross being handled that prevented the ball from going to a wide open unmarked player 6 yards from an empty goal?
Just because you've never seen it doesn't make it invalid. That's number one. Number two is, you probably HAVE seen it on crosses before. It just usually involved a slide tackle, a two-handed hold, or a shirt pull -- just not handling. But the fact that it's handling and not one of the other penal offenses isn't the determining factor.
Sounds like a good idea. GK gets caught out and you see an opponent about to shoot into an empty goal, just rugby tackle him and give up the PK and yellow. Player about to head the ball into an empty goal, just punch it away.
Rugby tackle in my view is serious foul play. It's an incredible breach of the spirit of the law going back to when Rugby split from soccer in the words of Bob Evans. No Rugby tackle is definitely a red regardless of DOGSO. If you foul someone who's about to take a shot on goal with just the keeper there of course it's DOGSO and a red card. A Handling Foul before the ball gets to the player though...doesn't meet the criteria in my view.
No... I'm absolutely DISAGREEING with you. Handling the ball is a foul. It's not different from any other type of penal foul. And I've seen red cards on crosses for those offenses, so a red for a handball is no different.
I believe we've discussed both of these before (preventing a goal scoring opportunity on a cross) and we decided that it should be a send off (for the arguments that have already been described). I vaguely remember it being discussed at recert too, but I can't say I pay a whole lot of attention during that time so I may be wrong.
I understand that...and I get why people are arguing that it should be. Based on what I've been taught though I disagree, and I need to see the USSF give their interpretation of this.